How much new funding is Austin Chen expecting? Is it conditional on an Anthropic IPO? Are your expectations conditional on an Anthropic IPO?
I suppose the whole crux of the matter is even if there is additional ~$300-400 million per year, what percentage will go into meta-EA, EA funds, general open grantmaking, or the broader EA community as opposed to GiveWell, GiveWellâs recommended charities, or existing charities like the Future of Life Institute? If itâs a low percentage, the conversation seems moot.
I donât know how much new funding Austin Chen is expecting.
My expectations are not contingent on Anthropic IPOing, and presumably neither is Austinâs. Employees are paid partially in equity, so some amount of financial engineering will be done to allow them to cash out, whether or not an IPO is happening.
I expect that, as these new donors are people working in the AI industry, a significant percentage is going to go into the broader EA community and not directly to GW. Double digit percentage for sure, but pretty wide CI.
They are also a fairly small non-profit and I think they would struggle to productively use significantly more funding in the short term. Scaling takes time and effort.
Anthropicâs been lately valued at $350b; if we estimate that eg 6% of that is in the form of equity allocated to employees, thatâs $21B between the ~3000 they currently have, or an average of $7m/âemployee.
I think 6% is somewhat conservative and wouldnât be surprised if it were more like 12-20%
Early employees have much (OOMs) more equity than new hires. Hereâs one estimated generated by Claude and I:
Even after discounting for standard vesting terms (4 years), % of EAs, and % allocated to charity, thatâs still mindboggling amounts of money. Iâd guess that this is more like â10 new OpenPhils in the next 2-6 yearsâ
I heard about the IPO rumors at the same time as everyone else (ie very recently), but for the last 6 months or so, the expectation was that Anthropic might have a ~yearly liquidity event, where Anthropic or some other buyer buys back employee stock up to some cap ($2m was thrown around as a figure)
As reported in other places, early Anthropic employees were offered a 3:1 match of donations of equity, iirc up to 50% of their total stock grant? New employees now are offered 1:1 match, but the 3:1 holds for the early ones (though not cofounders)
Even after discounting for standard vesting terms (4 years), % of EAs, and % allocated to charity, thatâs still mindboggling amounts of money. Iâd guess that this is more like â10 new OpenPhils in the next 2-6 yearsâ
Can you explain this math for me? The figure you started with is $21 billion in Anthropic equity, so whatâs your figure for Open Philanthropy/âCoefficient Giving? Dustin Moskovitzâs net worth is $12 billion and he and Cari Tuna have pledged to give at least 50% of it away, so thatâs at least $6 billion. $21 billion is only 3.5x more than $6 billion, not 10x.
If you think of that $21 billion in Anthropic equity, 50% is owned by people who identify with or like effective altruism, thatâs $10.5 billion. If they donate 50% of it to EA-related charities, thatâs around $5 billion. So, even on these optimistic assumptions, that would only be around one Open Philanthropy (now Coefficient Giving), not ten.
What didnât I understand? What did I miss?
(As a side note, the time horizon of 2-6 years is quite long...)
Differing priorities and timelines (ie focus on TAI) among Ants
Also, the Anthropic situation seems like itâll be different than Dustin in that the number of individual donors (âprincipalsâ) goes up a lotâwhich Iâm guessing leads to more grants at smaller sizes, rather than OpenPhilâs (relatively) few, giant grants
To be clear, â10 new OpenPhilsâ is trying to convey like, a gestalt or a vibe; how I expect the feeling of working within EA causes to change, rather than a rigorous point estimate
Dustin Moskovitzâs net worth is $12 billion and he and Cari Tuna have pledged to give at least 50% of it away, so thatâs at least $6 billion.
I think this pledge is over their lifetime, not over the next 2-6 years. OP/âCG seems to be spending in the realm of $1 billion per year (e.g. this, this), which would mean $2-6 billion over Austinâs time frame.
But if itâs $21 billion total in Anthropic equity, that $21 billion is going to be almost all of the employeesâ lifetime net worth â as far as we know and as far as they know. So, why would this $21 billion all get spent in the next 2-6 years?
If we assume, quite optimistically, half of the equity belongs to people who want to give to EA-related organizations, and they want to give 50% of their net worth to those organizations over the next 2-6 years, thatâs around $5 billion over the next 2-6 years.
If Open Philanthropy/âCoefficient Giving is spending $1 billion a year like you said, thatâs around one OP/âCG, not ten.
If OP/âCG is really spending $1 billion/âyear, then OP/âCG must have a lot more donations coming in from people other than Dustin Moskovitz or Cari Tuna than I realized. Either that or theyâre spending down their fortune much faster than I thought.
Oh, so if this is not IPO-contingent, what explains the timing on this? Why 2026 or 2027 and not 2025 or 2024?
I do know there are platforms like Forge Global and Hiive that allow for buying/âselling shares in private startups on the secondary market. I just wonder why a lot of people would be selling their shares in 2026 or 2027, specifically, rather than holding onto them longer. I think many employees of these AI companies are true believers in the growth story and the valuation story for these companies, and might be reluctant to sell their equity at a time when they feel theyâre still in the most rapid growth phase of the company.
Any particular reason to think many people out of these dozens or hundreds of nouveau riche will want to donate to meta-EA? I understand the argument for people like Daniela Amodei and Holden Karnofsky to give to meta-EA (although, as noted in another comment, Daniela Amodei says she doesnât identify with effective altruism), but I donât understand the argument for a lot of smaller donors donating to meta-EA.
Interesting footnote about the Future of Life Institute. Would that apply to a software engineer working for OpenAI or Anthropic, or just a donation directly from one of those companies?
My general point about established charities like the Future of Life Institute or any other example you care to think about is that most donors will probably prefer to donate directly to charities rather than donating through an EA fund or a regranter. And most will probably want to donate to things other than meta-EA.
these are good questions and points. i have answers and explanations such that the points you raise do not particularly change my mind, but i feel aversion towards explaining them on a public forum. thanks for understanding.
How much new funding is Austin Chen expecting? Is it conditional on an Anthropic IPO? Are your expectations conditional on an Anthropic IPO?
I suppose the whole crux of the matter is even if there is additional ~$300-400 million per year, what percentage will go into meta-EA, EA funds, general open grantmaking, or the broader EA community as opposed to GiveWell, GiveWellâs recommended charities, or existing charities like the Future of Life Institute? If itâs a low percentage, the conversation seems moot.
I donât know how much new funding Austin Chen is expecting.
My expectations are not contingent on Anthropic IPOing, and presumably neither is Austinâs. Employees are paid partially in equity, so some amount of financial engineering will be done to allow them to cash out, whether or not an IPO is happening.
I expect that, as these new donors are people working in the AI industry, a significant percentage is going to go into the broader EA community and not directly to GW. Double digit percentage for sure, but pretty wide CI.
And funny you should mention FLI, they specifically say they do not accept funding from âBig Techâ and AI companies so Iâm not sure where that leaves them.
They are also a fairly small non-profit and I think they would struggle to productively use significantly more funding in the short term. Scaling takes time and effort.
Appreciate the shoutout! Some thoughts:
Anthropicâs been lately valued at $350b; if we estimate that eg 6% of that is in the form of equity allocated to employees, thatâs $21B between the ~3000 they currently have, or an average of $7m/âemployee.
I think 6% is somewhat conservative and wouldnât be surprised if it were more like 12-20%
Early employees have much (OOMs) more equity than new hires. Hereâs one estimated generated by Claude and I:
Even after discounting for standard vesting terms (4 years), % of EAs, and % allocated to charity, thatâs still mindboggling amounts of money. Iâd guess that this is more like â10 new OpenPhils in the next 2-6 yearsâ
I heard about the IPO rumors at the same time as everyone else (ie very recently), but for the last 6 months or so, the expectation was that Anthropic might have a ~yearly liquidity event, where Anthropic or some other buyer buys back employee stock up to some cap ($2m was thrown around as a figure)
As reported in other places, early Anthropic employees were offered a 3:1 match of donations of equity, iirc up to 50% of their total stock grant? New employees now are offered 1:1 match, but the 3:1 holds for the early ones (though not cofounders)
Can you explain this math for me? The figure you started with is $21 billion in Anthropic equity, so whatâs your figure for Open Philanthropy/âCoefficient Giving? Dustin Moskovitzâs net worth is $12 billion and he and Cari Tuna have pledged to give at least 50% of it away, so thatâs at least $6 billion. $21 billion is only 3.5x more than $6 billion, not 10x.
If you think of that $21 billion in Anthropic equity, 50% is owned by people who identify with or like effective altruism, thatâs $10.5 billion. If they donate 50% of it to EA-related charities, thatâs around $5 billion. So, even on these optimistic assumptions, that would only be around one Open Philanthropy (now Coefficient Giving), not ten.
What didnât I understand? What did I miss?
(As a side note, the time horizon of 2-6 years is quite long...)
Some factors that could raise giving estimates:
The 3:1 match
If â6%â is more like â15%â
Future growth of Anthropic stock
Differing priorities and timelines (ie focus on TAI) among Ants
Also, the Anthropic situation seems like itâll be different than Dustin in that the number of individual donors (âprincipalsâ) goes up a lotâwhich Iâm guessing leads to more grants at smaller sizes, rather than OpenPhilâs (relatively) few, giant grants
So, what is your actual math to get to 10x the size of Open Philanthropy?
To be clear, â10 new OpenPhilsâ is trying to convey like, a gestalt or a vibe; how I expect the feeling of working within EA causes to change, rather than a rigorous point estimate
Though, Iâd be willing to bet at even odds, something like âyearly EA giving exceeds $10B by end of 2031â, which is about 10x the largest year per https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/ââNWHb4nsnXRxDDFGLy/ââhistorical-ea-funding-data-2025-update.
2031 is far too far away for me to take an interest in a bet about this, but I proposed one for the end of 2026.
I think this pledge is over their lifetime, not over the next 2-6 years. OP/âCG seems to be spending in the realm of $1 billion per year (e.g. this, this), which would mean $2-6 billion over Austinâs time frame.
But if itâs $21 billion total in Anthropic equity, that $21 billion is going to be almost all of the employeesâ lifetime net worth â as far as we know and as far as they know. So, why would this $21 billion all get spent in the next 2-6 years?
If we assume, quite optimistically, half of the equity belongs to people who want to give to EA-related organizations, and they want to give 50% of their net worth to those organizations over the next 2-6 years, thatâs around $5 billion over the next 2-6 years.
If Open Philanthropy/âCoefficient Giving is spending $1 billion a year like you said, thatâs around one OP/âCG, not ten.
If OP/âCG is really spending $1 billion/âyear, then OP/âCG must have a lot more donations coming in from people other than Dustin Moskovitz or Cari Tuna than I realized. Either that or theyâre spending down their fortune much faster than I thought.
Oh, so if this is not IPO-contingent, what explains the timing on this? Why 2026 or 2027 and not 2025 or 2024?
I do know there are platforms like Forge Global and Hiive that allow for buying/âselling shares in private startups on the secondary market. I just wonder why a lot of people would be selling their shares in 2026 or 2027, specifically, rather than holding onto them longer. I think many employees of these AI companies are true believers in the growth story and the valuation story for these companies, and might be reluctant to sell their equity at a time when they feel theyâre still in the most rapid growth phase of the company.
Any particular reason to think many people out of these dozens or hundreds of nouveau riche will want to donate to meta-EA? I understand the argument for people like Daniela Amodei and Holden Karnofsky to give to meta-EA (although, as noted in another comment, Daniela Amodei says she doesnât identify with effective altruism), but I donât understand the argument for a lot of smaller donors donating to meta-EA.
Interesting footnote about the Future of Life Institute. Would that apply to a software engineer working for OpenAI or Anthropic, or just a donation directly from one of those companies?
My general point about established charities like the Future of Life Institute or any other example you care to think about is that most donors will probably prefer to donate directly to charities rather than donating through an EA fund or a regranter. And most will probably want to donate to things other than meta-EA.
these are good questions and points. i have answers and explanations such that the points you raise do not particularly change my mind, but i feel aversion towards explaining them on a public forum. thanks for understanding.